Obama committed to ending "don't ask, don't tell" policy, aide says

Obama aide: Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' must wait

In a response to a question on the Web site Change.gov asking whether Obama would get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Gibbs goes on to say that Obama will not be able to make all his proposed changes immediately, but that he is still committed to ending the policy.

All I can say is, it's about time. The social conservatives have run the store for far too long, mixing their counterproductive ideology with our national politics. I mean, come on. Fighting a "global war on terror," and at the same time firing some of our most qualified experts simply because they're gay? Who does that? I'll give you a hint: the same people who run a presidential campaign solely on a platform of homophobia and charging that the opponent, himself a war veteran, is effete.

Let's face it, the only consequences of having gays serve openly in the military are that a few homophobic oafs will think that some of their fellow soldiers are looking at their asses in the shower. Which ain't happening. I'm certain the last thing gay soldiers (who already have been quietly serving with the homophobes) want to look at are the asses of the men they surely know would hate them if they knew they were gay.

Our military men are trained professionals, yes even the gay ones, and if they volunteer for service, then they deserve to be there. There won't be any Corporal Klingers running around in dresses, there will just be men and women doing their jobs as they were trained to do. And they'll continue to prove themselves, and probably sooner rather than later, all those old prejudices and stereotypes will vanish just as happened for the Japanese-American 442nd in World War II and for African Americans when Truman integrated the Army.

CNN says their polling shows that over 80% of the country feel gays should be able to openly serve in the military. Which is not surprising because it only makes perfect sense. But, I also bet the number will be close to 100% of Republican congressmen who oppose the lifting of the ban if it ever does come to a vote.

Whose side are they really on?

Has it been that long?

I hadn't visited my little rant blog in a while, and realized that I never posted once during the previous election, to my surprise. I mean, I certainly was talking about the election, but it seems like I did it all on forums, like arguing with some of the regulars who reply to opinion pieces on The Clarion Ledger's website.

Oh well.

So, my mom kept her word, she didn't vote at all this past election. I have to just shake my head to that.

I didn't vote for Edwards in the primary, I voted for Obama. Edwards really fracked up big time on the personal front, so we're lucky he didn't make it. I think his affair takes some of the shine off his gracious bowing out to let the historic contest between Hillary and Obama take center stage. I'm sure the fear of that revelation had a lot to do with him quitting his campaign when he did. I still think he is essentially a good person who cares more about the less fortunate than most in his position. But his indiscretion does kind of make Monicagate look small-time.

Obama won. I wasn't surprised, but I still was nervous on election night. You just don't know about people. When they get in the booth and no one is looking, old prejudices can come back out. Obama was clearly the better candidate and his team was actually qualified for the job (the idea of Sarah Palin waiting in the wings behind the oldest sitting president in history, with health issues no less, should frighten any reasonable person).

If anything, I'm bothered that it was as close as it was. It should not have taken a Herculean effort on the part of Obama's campaign, especially with regards to fundraising, to win this past election. It just shouldn't. Not at this point in history with so many challenges on our plate. Not ever.

But, that's all old history now. All those awful "what ifs" that would come with a McCain/Palin victory fell and fluttered away like dead skin. We don't have to worry about that anymore. That is, until 2012. Really?

My mom, the racist (and Democrat)

You ever have a sudden inspiration about something that you wished you had said in a conversation hours, days, or years before? Of course you have, we all do that. A few hours ago, I was talking to my mom on the phone, and the conversation somehow drifted into politics for a few minutes. She said she was going to vote for Hillary, which was a bit of a surprise to me. The last election that I think I know how she voted was the 1984 election, and I'm pretty sure she voted for Reagan. So I always assumed she was a former Democrat who went Republican during Reagan's first term, like my dad, who's been a Rush Limbaugh fan for over a decade.

I dismissively said momma, you're not a democrat, to which she said, oh yeah, I'm all about Hillary. Huh, I thought. And said, well what if Obama gets the nomination, you're going to vote for him, right? Or at least, that's what I would've said, if she hadn't cut me off. He's too arrogant, she said. If he gets the nomination, she's just not going to vote at all.

So we discussed it back and forth for a few minutes, she said she wasn't racist but she wouldn't vote for him. She also said all of them (and if you grew up like I did, any time you heard the word "them" used in a certain way, you know that meant black people. And I don't necessarily mean my family, I mean anybody. All my life, I've been in conversations like that, where someone lowers their voice just a little, maybe even leans in, and talks confidentially to you about "them" like we were all in an exclusive club or something) would be voting for him anyway. Oh, she said, they always turn out to vote if it was one of them running. And then she talked something about how they elected the black mayor of her town, the black superintendent, etc. etc. We bickered a little more about politics then started talking about other things.

Later, I related some of this to my wife, who immediately said that was code for "uppity" when I got to the part about Obama being arrogant. Yeah, I shoulda said that. Damn! Now, a few hours later than that, I thought of something else I should have said. You know what? Yeah they should turn out when one of their "own" is running. Actually, they should turn out for every election, something that drives me nuts. I believe Mississippi would always be in play politically every election cycle if the black folks would just turn out and vote. But they don't, and we get stuck with good ol' boy chumps like Hayley Barbour as governor. Getting back to my point though, yeah they should turn out when someone who looks like them is running for an office like president, and with a credible chance no less. It's just my opinion of course, but I think one major reason why black people don't vote like they should is because they just don't see the point. They feel like nothing will change no matter who is in there. And you know what, for the most part they are right. Certainly not when a Republican was president, and rarely when a Dem was president, have they really been able to say "he cares about us and our issues."

But this year could be different. Two different "minorities" have very credible chances to become POTUS. Women should be falling over themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton, their first real chance to claim the highest office in the land. Black people should be turning out in droves to vote for Obama for the same reason. And whoever ultimately receives the nomination, both of those groups should overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidate. For all the history of this nation, only one group has ever held the office, white males. White Christian males. What is today a true minority has had a veritable stranglehold on our country for all our lives. I think it's important for the health of the nation that black kids, little girls, Latinos, Asians and every other "minority" you can think of can have a dream that one day they might be president-- and have it not be a pipe dream. Until we elect an Obama or a Hillary, that's all it will ever be.

I didn't tell my mom any of that, and I don't think it would matter if I had. And honestly, I still plan to cast my vote for Edwards in the primary. But whoever does win the nomination, that's who I'm voting for. And hopefully, after this election, a lot more people will dare to dream.

Top Smirks of 2007

Bob Cesca always seems to be right on with his blog posts at Huffington Post. This latest one examines the top inappropriate smirks from President Bush during 2007.

The Most Inappropriate Bush War Smirk of 2007

Given 2008's inevitably ramped-up analysis of the Bush Legacy by the very serious traditional media, there's one aspect of the president which, staggeringly though not surprisingly, won't be covered. In fact, it's never been covered to my knowledge. The traditional media has never really challenged the president on his grotesquely inappropriate reactions to serious issues -- especially Iraq.

After nearly 7 years of this shit, one does have to wonder why the so-called Liberal Media has never taken Bush to task for his laughing and smirking when talking about things that horrify the rest of us.

Long-time, no-post

It's been a while. I saw a letter to the Clarion Ledger today that got me in the mood to write again. I tried to respond, but it said my post was too long (1,000 char max) so here it is at the end.

First, the original Letter:

Few things are easier and require less intellectual honesty than defining one's enemies. And in his Dec. 9 column ("North, South Republicans may be set for breakup"), Richard Dortch attempted to do just that, using his favorite rhetorical device - the straw man.

Under the faade of explaining a non-existent rift between Northern and Southern Republicans, Dortch falls back on lame stereotypes. Southern members of the GOP, he intones, are "typically poor or working class, less educated, (and) mildly paranoid." Moreover, they don't care about taxes or foreign policy; indeed, they "see homosexuality as a bigger threat to national security than rising sea levels." He even throws in the garden-variety accusations of racism and xenophobia just to hammer home his point.

Wow! One can understand a liberal's bitterness, since Republicans have won seven out of 10 presidential elections since 1968. But is it too much to ask that in his critique of the opposition party, Dortch use an occasional smattering of facts or logic?

The mass exodus of Southern Democrats from their party began in 1968, when it ceased to be the party of FDR, Truman and JFK and became the province of George McGovern and the peaceniks. Contrary to Dortch's assertion, Southerners care a lot about foreign policy now, and they did then. When the Woodstock generation took over the Democratic Party, Southerners were rubbed the wrong way. And rightfully so.

At the national level, Democrats were on the wrong side of the Cold War, favoring a policy of accommodation - if not outright pacifism - in the face of a communist empire that enslaved billions. Today, their ideological descendants have taken that policy to its logical extension: Congressional Democrats want to surrender and proclaim defeat in Iraq. They would grant access to U.S. courts for Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. Is it any wonder Democratic candidates in the South have a tough time making it to Congress these days?

In a column full of cheap shots and bigoted stereotypes, one other of Dortch's whoppers begs a response: "Southern Republicans retain, to their collective disgrace, a dewy-eyed sentimentality about the slave-driving Old South."

One wonders how many Republicans Dortch knows and regularly talks with to come up with such a sweeping, hateful characterization. Still, it's a tried-and-true liberal tactic. Environmentalists' opponents want to poison the water and pollute the air; those who resist collectivization of the American health care system hate the children, the elderly and the poor; and Republicans in the South would rather be burning crosses.

Hillary Clinton would be proud.

Dortch's column said a lot more about himself and liberals than it did the enemies he sought to demonize. Sadly, he proved that liberals don't want a real debate on the issues. They would rather appeal to fear and emotion than rely on facts and logic.

And in his case, when starting from the premise of loathing his opponents, it's entirely fitting for him to construct a straw man and knock it down with hateful invective.

At the end of his smear job, Mr. Dortch probably felt better about himself. That's sad. But he certainly didn't win any converts.

Ultimately, all he succeeded in doing was insulting the intelligence of other liberals.

Because, who could take any of that seriously?

Kevin Broughton

Madison

Next, someone named qtmonkey responded:

Dortch, you are a broken record! one that has been played to the point that you can't tell whose singing the song. Dortch must be a socialist that has benefited from entitlements and minority set asides. What he has against a capitalist free market system, I do not understand. Republicans feel stongly that intelligence and actually working are the keys to success! Dortch obivously believes the goverment should decide who has and has not. Tell Hillary she can't fool the people of MS regardless of her pandering and Bills pimping! I do hope you get what you deserve No more No less!


Finally, my followup would have been:
If Republicans feel strongly that intelligence and actual work are the key to success, why did they nominate George Bush over John McCain 7 years ago?

While I haven't read the original article, I can guess at some of the content from Kevin Broughton's letter to the editor. Contrary to what Broughton says, I know of a lot of Republican voters who literally vote against their interests simply because the GOP is the anti-gay, anti-black, pro-guns, and pro-Jesus party. Hell, look at the 2004 election. Bush could not run on his record, so what single wedge issue did he overwhelmingly use, especially in the South? The specter of Gay Marriage (feel free to use an ominous voice when reading those two words). Remember, Gay Marriage (ominous voice) was going to be the end of society and civilization. Funny, though, that Massachusetts went ahead with their plan to allow it, and that state has not exactly fallen into the sea has it? Not that it mattered, because as soon as Bush was through using the Southern voters and their prejudices once again, that plank fell by the wayside. The single most important idea about his 2004 campaign, forgotten by February, 2005. It's no wonder the evangelicals are in a tizzy, preparing to support another religious nut (Bush only pretended to be, to gain their support) in Mike Huckabee-- except unlike Bush, Huck is the real thing.

You can argue all you want, but the statistics don't lie and even a person educated in the South should be able to read them. We spend too little on education, too much on foolish abstinence-only campaigns that don't work. We pay coaches million dollar contracts but are stingy with the education dollars. Financially, Mississippi is always at the bottom, or at the top depending on your perspective, of the poorest states in the U.S. Education, always at the bottom. Crime, always at the top. In divorce rates, always in the top third for highest numbers. And we still make fun of states in the so-called Liberal Hell of the Northeast?

Take 2 minutes to contrast Mississippi with a state like Massachusetts or Connecticut. Those uber-Liberal states have higher levels of education, lower crime, higher wages, and dramatically lower divorce rates- AND they support Gay Marriage. How can this be?? Gay Marriage will destroy civilization, right? As it turns out, no- Massachusetts and Connecticut are the top states with the lowest divorce rate.

Perhaps if the people of the South weren't so easily race-baited, or gay-baited, or gun-baited, or Jesus-baited, or foreigner-baited, we would be able to reason our way through the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party, and actually elect leaders that will make a difference for Mississippi. Maybe they wouldn't consistently vote against their own interests.

But I'm not holding my breath.


Hmm. That was fun. I will have to start writing again.

Dems Finally Showing Some Backbone

Today, the Senate Dems (and even a couple of Republicans) successfully blocked, for the time being, Sen. Ted Steven's shameful ploy to try to sneak Alaska National Wildlife Refuge drilling into a must-pass budget bill, with funding for everything from the military in Iraq, to Hurricane Katrina cleanup. Where were these people back 3 years ago, when they let George Bush have a 99-1 vote of support on attacking Iraq? We all knew it was the wrong vote then, but I guess they feared looking like they were on the wrong side of history, just in case Bush turned out to be right after all. I mean, yeah it looks silly now, we all knew he was full of shit then too, but at the time I guess, well.. I don't know. I'm just glad they're finally saying, "no more."

And poor Scott McClellan, he looks so stupid by pointing out that gas prices will rise again next year and everything. As if opening up ANWR is going to suddenly cause us to have 5 cent a gallon gasoline. It would be years before we would see any benefit, if at all, and by then gas will be $5 a gallon or more anyway. The better solution, and it's so obvious that you have to either be brain-dead-- or on the take-- to not see it, is to focus our resources and efforts into making more efficient fuel and vehicle technology, so that we don't even need 10 billion barrels of oil, or whatever the latest estimate, or should I say, "estimate" for ANWR is. As technologically strong as America is, we have the ability, and the obligation to do so. And the doomsayers keep saying we'll lose jobs, money, etc if we don't start drilling. What about the jobs and benefits that would come about as a result of the R&D of improving fuel efficiency right now? It just makes no sense-- no wait, it does make sense if you're some grouchy asshole of a senator, whose state stands to gain billions of dollars if the drilling ever does get passed.

Well those wacky Christians are at it again

What is it about Christians, or maybe it's just the Christian politicians and pundits and fundraisers, that they need some sort of boogeyman to organize and fund-raise around? Last year, it was gay marriage that the scumbag conservative politicians used to organize their base, earlier this year it was poor Terri Schiavo, now it appears we liberals are being Grinches and trying to steal "Christ" out of Christmas. This is news to me! I was not aware I was trying to do anything of the sort. But apparently Bill O'Reilly thinks we are, the creepy-looking John Gibson thinks we are, the incredibly annoyingly self-righteous organization AFA thinks we are, and who knows who else is jumping on this bandwagon.

Is this guy creepy or what?

Let me get this straight: Because someone might say Happy Holidays, or Season's Greetings- phrases I have been hearing all my life- then that person is trying to rip Jesus Christ right out of a good white Christian man's life! He might as well snatch off their WWJD bracelets and run while he's at it. (Do these morons even still buy those things?) And even worse than that, stores, STORES! are using Happy Holidays banners in their advertising, you know, cause of the multiple holidays that happen around this time every year, instead of draping big Oh Come, All Ye Faithful signs across the doors, or whatever it is these people want. Gag me, please. Funny how even their evangelical poster boy, George Dubya doesn't even try to force Jesus on everybody all the time. And stores, who have to make money after all, use the same messages to try to be inclusive to everyone. It's a shame that out of a nation of some what, 300 million? that some places will bend under the pressure of two Fox News assholes and a bonafide southern preacher man from Tupelo, Miss., who have to continuously come up with one boogeyman after another to make sure their ratings stay up there, or they meet their fundraising goals so they can keep their cadillacs a-rollin'.

Is it just me, but are Christians just some of the most outraged, hate-mongering people going? Do they even realize these supposedly decent Christian men work hard to keep them that way? Anybody got a good idea for the next WWJD bracelet, or Passion of the Christ movie, Bible Store, or just whatever the next great marketing thing to take advantage of these people? They're just so gullible, I want in on it too!